• Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 137

Topic: Terminology

I'd like to propose the following precise terminology heirarchy for the FAQ and/or the next edition of the rules.  I feel that this could be helpful in avoiding some ambiguities.  For example, the current rules often refer to "starships" when they apply more broadly, e.g., to stations.

UNIT
  VESSEL
    SHIP (includes ships without hyperdrives)
      STARSHIP
    STATION (like ships, but with no engines or hyperdrives)
  FLIGHT
    FIGHTER FLIGHT
    DRONE FLIGHT
    MARINE BOARDING POD FLIGHT
  BATTLESAT
  MINE

Most of the rules will therefore refer to vessels.

Any objections?  Ambiguities/omissions/clarifications?

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Terminology

well, the FAQ is open for changes to all, mostly.

I have no desire to make things more complicated than q&a

and I see no difference between flight, and drone flight or fighter flight.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 137

Re: Terminology

mundungus wrote:

UNIT
  VESSEL
    SHIP (includes ships without hyperdrives)
      STARSHIP
    STATION (like ships, but with no engines or hyperdrives)
  FLIGHT
    FIGHTER FLIGHT
    DRONE FLIGHT
    MARINE BOARDING POD FLIGHT
  BATTLESAT
  MINE

Well, that makes almost no sense without the indentation.  Lemme try again:

--VESSEL
----SHIP (includes ships without hyperdrives)
------STARSHIP
----STATION (like ships, but with no engines or hyperdrives)
--FLIGHT
----FIGHTER FLIGHT
----DRONE FLIGHT
----MARINE BOARDING POD FLIGHT
--BATTLESAT
--MINE